The petitioners, beneficiaries under the Indiramma housing scheme, filed a writ petition to prevent the Lokayukta from entertaining a complaint regarding irregularities in house construction and allotment. It was a writ petition to quash the action of the third respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.2742 of 2012
Dated:14.02.2012
Between:
Kappala Nageswara Rao, And others.
Petitioners
And Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta, And others.
... Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.2742 of 2012
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The petitioners are residents of different villages in Ravulapalem, Kothapeta and Atryapuram Mandals in East Godavari District. They statedly belong to Scheduled Caste community. They eke out the livelihood by doing coolie work. They were allotted houses under the Integrated Novel Development in Rural and Model Municipal Areas (INDIRAMMA) housing scheme sometime ago. They filed the instant writ petition aggrieved by the taking of cognisance of the complaint(s) filed by the third respondent against them, and therefore, seek a declaration that the action of the first respondent in entertaining
the complaint of the third respondent as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983.
The case of the petitioners is that the third respondent filed a complaint on 16.01.2012 against one Chalapathi Rao, Assistant Engineer, A.P.Housing Corporation. Therein the irregularities in the construction and allotment of houses were alleged. The same was registered as complaint No.483/2010/B2, and a copy of the same was sent to the second respondent calling for report. Even before the report was sent, it appears, the third respondent filed an application to withdraw his complaint. In the meanwhile, the District Collector submitted the report on 21.10.2011 informing that an amount of Rs.1,22,200/- was recovered and remaining amount was yet to be recovered. Taking this into consideration, by order dated 28.10.2011, the Hon’ble Upa Lokayukta directed to forward the copy of the representation dated 04.07.2011 (second complaint of the third respondent) to the District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, and the Superintendent of Police for taking necessary action. The petitioners would contend that when the third respondent already filed an application to withdraw the complaint, another complaint is not maintainable, and entertaining the same is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta (Investigation) Rules, 1984.
After hearing the Counsel for the petitioners, we requested him to satisfy this Court as to bona fides of the petitioners and their locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Hon’ble Lokayukta in the complaint given by the third respondent against the Officials of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Corporation. He would submit that the petitioners are the beneficiaries and if any action is taken on the Officials of the Andhra Pradesh Housing
Corporation, they are likely to suffer.
We are afraid, the writ petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the action of the Hon’ble Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta in taking cognisance of the complaint – whether it is first complaint or the second complaint – forwarded by the third respondent. The writ petition is misconceived, and we are convinced that it is not bona fide.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. The W.P.M.P shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________
________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)
14.02.2012 vs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are fit to approach the court for preventing the Lokayukta from entertaining a complaint against officials over housing scheme allotment.
Whether the writ petition is bona fide.
Kappala Nageswara Rao
Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta
V.V.S. Rao
G. Krishna Mohan Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
